What's the rush?

May 2011
Modern Healthcare;5/2/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 18, p24
Trade Publication
The author examines the reasons why the U .S. Supreme Court refused to fast track oral arguments on the constitutionality of the mandate by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requiring individuals to buy health insurance. He claims that part of the reason for the court's inaction is that the court is looking for a decision to be handed down in time of the 2012 election. No matter which way the justices rule, he concludes that the next stage of the appeal is imminent, hence the absence of the need to rush an early intervention.


Related Articles

  • Path set for ACA? Carlson, Joe // Modern Healthcare;10/3/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 40, p12 

    The article reports on the appeal filed by the U.S. Justice Department before the Supreme Court after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring individuals to purchase private insurance under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. It explains...

  • The Race for Health Reform Enters a Whole New Stage. Aston, Geri // H&HN: Hospitals & Health Networks;Dec2010, Vol. 84 Issue 12, p28 

    The article reports on efforts which Republican politicians are making to repeal portions of health care reform legislation which was passed in the U.S. in 2010 that are concerned with mandatory health insurance coverage. The impact that other portions of the legislation will have on the future...

  • HEALTHCARE REFORM AND THE CONSTITUTION.  // Modern Healthcare;11/21/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 47, p11 

    The article focuses on the healthcare reform proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama. It is said that Obama is likely to defend the reform, regarded as his signature domestic achievement, before the Supreme Court on the night before his re-election campaign. Justice Anthony Kennedy is expected...

  • OTHER VOICES.  // Modern Healthcare;1/24/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p22 

    This section presents the comments of San Jose, California-based "Mercury News" and "Wall Street Journal" about the debate on the repeal of the healthcare reform law.

  • Another way. Price, Nancy // Modern Healthcare;1/24/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 4, p26 

    The author comments on the move of Republicans to repeal the healthcare reform law in the U.S.

  • Political flexing. Brumfield, Therese // Modern Healthcare;2/14/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 7, p27 

    A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Senate rejects reform repeal" in the February 2, 2011 issue.

  • Arguments begin: Federal appeals judges grill Va. ACA opponents. Carlson, Joe // Modern Healthcare;5/16/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 20, p8 

    The article reports that opponents of the U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were questioned by three federal appeals judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Opponents were asked whey they are concentrating on the idea that Congress cannot regulate economic inactivity. Attorney...

  • Taking sides: Reform ruling has observers facing off on future. Galloro, Vince // Modern Healthcare;7/4/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 27, p8 

    The article reports on the decision of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio which confirmed the U.S. Congress' authority to impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The decision divided observers, including the three-judge panel that made the ruling, on the...

  • A swing and a miss: Judge's ruling draws reaction from both sides. Carlson, Joe // Modern Healthcare;11/14/2011, Vol. 41 Issue 46, p8 

    The article focuses on the ruling issued by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's insurance mandate. Several conservatives were disappointed with Silverman's ruling in the Seven-Sky...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics